The state Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday on whether the law violates bar owners' rights and whether the losses stemming from having to close for four hours are so excessive that the owners are being punished unfairly.

This isn't the first time the justices have dealt with the 2000 ordinance. In December 2002, the court ruled Charleston's law did not supersede state law in setting bar hours.

That dispute was a small part of the case argued Wednesday. Bar owners were in Columbia this time because a lower court threw out their complaints. They want the justices to send the case back for further proceedings.

City officials say they passed the ordinance because people in neighborhoods near downtown bars complained of noise, public drunkenness and other problems related to late-night drinking.

"We thought it was a limited response to a major problem," said William Regan, a lawyer for the city. "You could be open 20 hours a day, but from 2 to 6, you could get some sleep."

John Martin, lawyer for the bar owners, said the ordinance is ineffective and not fairly applied.

"For every ill the city complained of, there already is a law dealing with it -- drunk driving, assault, loitering, noise, vandalism," he said.

The case could hinge on a 1957 decision involving the Columbia suburb of Forest Acres, where the city council passed a law requiring all businesses to close between midnight and 6 a.m. A nightclub owner sued, saying her profits went down 50 percent. The judges said the city acted unfairly in targeting certain businesses.

Martin used that case in his argument, along with statistics that show crimes in the city have increased, as have drunken driving arrests in the suburbs, since the bar closing law was passed.

"If alcohol is the problem, the ill the city is seeking to cure, then don't just stop serving alcohol. Stop selling it at the 24-hour Amoco," Martin said.

Bar owners also think it's unfair they have to close completely at 2 a.m., suggesting that just shutting off alcohol sales would be a reasonable compromise.

But police officials told the city they would have to be in every bar and restaurant to make sure that rule was followed, Regan said.

"We can't enforce that law because we can't know if someone has a glass of beer or a glass of ginger ale," he said.

Some bar owners have reported a 40 percent drop in revenue since the law went into effect.

The Club Tango bar on Hutson Street has reported the value of its business has dropped $744,000 because of having to close early, Martin said.

The problem is especially acute for downtown bars because they can't stay open after 2 a.m. to serve the thousands of workers employed by restaurants and other businesses catering to tourists that don't close until midnight or later, Martin said.

Regan said Charleston officials were sympathetic but had to do something to stop the "nuisance."

The city wanted to target only downtown bars because of the unique nature of the peninsula, where most of Charleston's night-life and many of its desirable neighborhoods are centered, but extended the 2 a.m. closing time across Charleston for equal treatment.

The justices didn't tip their hands as to which way they might be leaning.

Click here to return to story:
http://www.charleston.net/stories/040804/loc_08bars.shtml